Steely Dan Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 IMO, it should be two losing challenges. If the game is officiated poorly a coach can only use two challenges per half while three more bad calls may go against his team. I say let them challenge until they lose two. I know it would increase the length of a game but it seems only fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 the challenge rules need to be completely overhauled, no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFL Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 so, theoretically, one could stop the 10 times in one game? i dunno, where do you draw the line? 5? even thats too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest three3 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 you should be able to challenge ANYTHING. you should be able to challenge until you get 2 wrong. each time you get one wrong you should lose a timeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 IMO, it should be two losing challenges. If the game is officiated poorly a coach can only use two challenges per half while three more bad calls may go against his team. I say let them challenge until they lose two. I know it would increase the length of a game but it seems only fair. I said the same thing in the Jets Bengals thread a few hours ago it makes no sense that you can win by having the play reversed but still lose a challenge...why should teams be penalized for bad calls by the refs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share Posted January 10, 2010 so, theoretically, one could stop the 10 times in one game? i dunno, where do you draw the line? 5? even thats too much They will still use their challenges sparingly because they don't want to lose those TO's. I'm saying that if they can win 5 challenges then they should be able to keep going. I say this because while watching the Bengals game they made mention of a dubious call but the team was out of challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFL Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 They will still use their challenges sparingly because they don't want to lose those TO's. I'm saying that if they can win 5 challenges then they should be able to keep going. I say this because while watching the Bengals game they made mention of a dubious call but the team was out of challenges. they wasted their second challenge on an obvious reception. if you get your 1st 2 correct, you get a 3rd. i think the system is fine. the bengals' problem is that they didnt run enough, stop the run or rattle a rookie visiting qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 This is not tennis where the player has six challenges per set, this is the NFL. The referees are ultimately responsible for the outcome. Leave it where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBlood Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 This is not tennis where the player has six challenges per set, this is the NFL. The referees are ultimately responsible for the outcome. Leave it where it is. And you dont see a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 You should be able to challenge penalties, if for no other reason than to eliminate the annoying drive-killing phantom holding calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 you should be able to challenge ANYTHING. you should be able to challenge until you get 2 wrong. each time you get one wrong you should lose a timeout.The replay system doesn't allow challenges on judgment calls. IMO this is a very good thing. Most penalties are judgment calls, such as holding, or pass interference. If you allow replays on calls like that, you're pitting the judgment of someone watching a replay vs. the one of someone who was observing it live. You're asking the replay official to make decisions such as "in your opinion, did that constitute holding?" That opens up an entirely new can of worms, and isn't how a replay system should work. Replay should limited to much more cut & dry scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I like the challenge till you loose system because you don't want to loose a timeout and you still have a limit to how many times you can challenge. I don't think coaches are going to use challenges that much more (Especially in the 2nd half when timeouts have a premium) to the point where it will extend games that much. However if they left it where it is I wouldn't be too mad about it. In the end fix the OT system that is the biggest issue I have with the NFL that a coin toss gives a team a 60% chance of winning a game. Either make it where you have to score a TD to win or if you score on the 1st possession the other team is allowed to have an offensive possession to win or tie. I am just having a hard time rewarding teams for kicking field goals in overtime. The moment a Super Bowl ends in overtime on a 1st possession FG is when they will change the rule because the loosing city will likely never let anyone hear the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts